Establishment Democrats have learned absolutely nothing

With Republican Senate primaries from West Virginia to Montana promising to pit Trump-inspired insurgents against more mainstream candidates, Democrats are considering ways to step in and wreak some havoc. The idea: Elevate the GOP’s most extreme option in each race, easing Democrats’ path to victory in a range of states tilted against them.

Wait a second. Didn't the Dems do the exact same thing with Trump in 2016?

So then I was reading this article when I realized that it also sounded familiar.

For Democrats, one of the most important races for governor next year is taking shape in Illinois....Six months before Democrats have even held their primary, party leaders have already lined up behind a venture capitalist of their own: J.B. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune who, along with his wife, contributed nearly $20 million to support Hillary Clinton last year. With a net worth of $3.5 billion, Pritzker will certainly be able to compete with Rauner’s own war chest. But by backing one of the wealthiest candidates ever to run for governor, the Democratic establishment is ignoring the rising tide of populism that has upended American politics, setting up a battle between two private-equity plutocrats.

Deja vu. Didn't the Dems do the exact same thing in 2016?

Even in these days, when the liberal base is in a frenzy against racism, establishment candidate Joe Biden still managed to say this.

Early in his stump speech for Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones in Alabama on Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden began to wax nostalgic, recalling a bygone era in Washington when our politics were more cooperative. “Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old fashioned Democratic segregationists,” he told the crowd in Birmingham. “You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

Ah yes. The good old days of southern segregationists.
Establishment Democrats are completely tone deaf.
Even corporate lackey and establishment mouthpiece Markos denounced Biden's comments, but not before qualifying it.

Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive blog Daily Kos, agrees with Biden on this much: “The left’s effectiveness will always be constrained so long as part of it indiscriminately attacks those with money and success.”

Which brings me to this article and I got a funny feeling that I've seen this before.

Progressives and young Democrats complain that party leaders ignore Republican-leaning areas of the country and employ dirty tactics in order to defend against progressives attaining leadership roles.
...Earlier this year, the Florida Democratic Party chair race was decided in a similar fashion: Billionaire donor Stephen Bittel circumvented party rules to become eligible to run, defeating five opponents who banded together to stop him. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair race was also manipulated behind the scenes. Delegates were threatened so that they would switch their support from Congressman Keith Ellison to the establishment pick, former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez.
Additionally, the Green Party filed a lawsuit last week against the Democratic Party alleging voter intimidation, voter fraud, and electioneering in a Pennsylvania State Assembly special election in Philadelphia that occurred earlier this year. The election was held after the two previous Democratic state representatives for the district resigned due to federal fraud charges: Leslie Acosta plead guilty to money laundering charges in 2016, and her predecessor Jose Miranda resigned after pleading guilty to corruption charges. Unfortunately, corruption in Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, is a pervasive trend.

Ah, yes. Corruption.
The Democratic Party is swimming in it.
Whether it is rigging elections against progressives, or good old fashioned bribery, the Democratic establishment has it in spades.

As I pointed out the other day, Berniecrats are having a great deal of success, but only in Red and Purple states.
In Blue states, where a corrupt Democratic establishment rules, they are freezing out real progressives.

This can also be seen in the establishment push-back against Medicare For All, which relies on anonymous attacks from Hillarybots.

This open and unaddressed corruption is the Democrats biggest problem, bar none.
What was the public's greatest fear in 2016?
Terrorism? The Economy? Russia? A new season of The Kardashians?
Nope and nope.

As the presidential election campaign drags on, it may come as no surprise that corrupt government officials are one of the greatest fears many Americans have, according to a new study.

This isn't an aberration. As many as 81% of Americans think the government is corrupt.
75% and 81% means this isn't a partisan topic.

Normally the voter's greatest fear would be the topic for endless policy debates, committee meetings, and political pundits yelling at each other.
Instead we've gotten an oppressive silence in Washington and the news media.
It's as if the entire establishment doesn't want to talk about the most important issue on people's minds.

It isn't just the political establishment.
Progressives and liberals are guilty of not taking this concern seriously.
For example, consider how people consistently support liberal issues by themselves. Progressives and liberals keep scratching their heads why they won't win more elections when they are on the right side of the issues.
In fact, the reason is obvious, if you listen to people's concerns.

a CNN/ORC poll conducted in February of 2016 showed that the vast majority of Americans believe that the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy (71 percent) instead of being fair to most people (27 percent). The idea that income and wealth should be more evenly distributed among Americans has won the support of 60 percent or greater since 2012, but Americans are skeptical that government officials will act to protect their best interests.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense.
People overwhelmingly agree that we need more equality, more social programs, more of everything you normally associate with the government.But why would you want to hand over more power and money to a bunch of corrupt assholes?
It's an obvious and important question, and if you can't answer it then your stand on the issues don't matter. You don't win elections.
What's more, it isn't just a case of aiding corruption. It's a case of rational fear.
If you believe the government is both corrupt and heavily armed (and most people do), then fear of Big Government is entirely rational.

It's not just an immediate problem (i.e. the crushing of progressive causes, the rise of wealth inequality, etc.), there is also a long-term problem that is even more dangerous.

Dig a little deeper, and it sometimes seems like the history of the populist right – with its calls to “organize discontent” and its endless war against “the establishment” and the “elites” – is nothing but a history of reformatting left-wing ideas to fit the needs of the billionaire class. Think of Ronald Reagan’s (and Mike Pence’s) deliberate reprise of Franklin Roosevelt. Or the constant echoes of Depression-era themes and imagery that one heard from the Tea Party movement.

The lack of real progressive populism, due to endemic corruption in the Democratic Party, has left open a window for fake pseudo populism on the right, stealing the language of the left.
Historically this is called fascism.

the bump in February was the Resist movement, when I also think Markos was whoring himself around for more eyeballs after the election fiasco and dK and others might have merged their lists. There was also speculation around that time that he was buying page-hits from India or someplace.

Sure disappeared fast, didn't it?

#1 Curious about that bump in late February. And, yes, I am a petty person who roots for the failure of the GOS.

Biden or Markos?
Uh, the old fashioned segregationist Democrats of yore are Republicans of today. And my attacks on the rich and successful are not indiscriminate. They are direct, pointed, intended, and supported by data.
I hope more of the crooks do some time in some of those private prisons where they just might eat green baloney.

@gjohnsit@gjohnsit@gjohnsit
I have no idea how but I'm on his mailing list and get periodic updates. I suspect simply living in an affluent TN county is enough reason. Anyway, his updates are always red meat to the idiots who put him, Marsha Blackburn, and Trump in office. He's miffed that Real Republicans have to share with someone who can't keep his mouth shut. It makes grafting harder on the old guard of political and corporate thievery to make their dishonest livings.

Take it to the bank, it's genuine and authenticated, that anything Corker says is self serving.

It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.

#4#4#4 I have no idea how but I'm on his mailing list and get periodic updates. I suspect simply living in an affluent TN county is enough reason. Anyway, his updates are always red meat to the idiots who put him, Marsha Blackburn, and Trump in office. He's miffed that Real Republicans have to share with someone who can't keep his mouth shut. It makes grafting harder on the old guard of political and corporate thievery to make their dishonest livings.

Take it to the bank, it's genuine and authenticated, that anything Corker says is self serving.

Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive blog Daily Kos, agrees with Biden on this much: “The left’s effectiveness will always be constrained so long as part of it indiscriminately attacks those with money and success.”

"Like me!" -- Markos

It's no accident that the word "boss", spelled in reverse, is "double-s o b"! And Markos is definitely a boss, no doubt about it!

up

21 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides
He's fanatical against racism and sexism to compensate for his open classism.

Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive blog Daily Kos, agrees with Biden on this much: “The left’s effectiveness will always be constrained so long as part of it indiscriminately attacks those with money and success.”

"Like me!" -- Markos

It's no accident that the word "boss", spelled in reverse, is "double-s o b"! And Markos is definitely a boss, no doubt about it!

@thanatokephaloides
so I figured a bit of shortness-of-penis humor would be accepted here.
I am raising money to start a company that sells tiny condoms for men that the current market is just not a good fit.
They will be very expensive, targeting a "tiny" market of 1%ers.

#5.1.1.1 so I figured a bit of shortness-of-penis humor would be accepted here.
I am raising money to start a company that sells tiny condoms for men that the current market is just not a good fit.
They will be very expensive, targeting a "tiny" market of 1%ers.

@gjohnsit
Markos is just one person and doesn't seem to say all that much on his site (my one interaction with him should be popular here - I pointed out that Obama was a 'moderate Republican' on economic policy, and Markos responded "Bullshit". I responded with a series of experts saying the same thing and finally with Obama himself saying he was - Markos did not reply.)

But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

#5
He's fanatical against racism and sexism to compensate for his open classism.

@Craig234
is that many Democrats either don't believe wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class is a problem, or believe that there isn't a political acceptable solution (because free markets are sacrosanct).
Or have managed to convince themselves without any proof that these economic problems only happen because of racism and sexism.
These people have convinced themselves that they are the "pragmatic" ones, despite their long losing record.

#5.1 Markos is just one person and doesn't seem to say all that much on his site (my one interaction with him should be popular here - I pointed out that Obama was a 'moderate Republican' on economic policy, and Markos responded "Bullshit". I responded with a series of experts saying the same thing and finally with Obama himself saying he was - Markos did not reply.)

But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

I believe the problem is that many Democrats either don't believe wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class is a problem, or believe that there isn't a political acceptable solution (because free markets are sacrosanct).

Despite the fact that unregulated "free markets" do not and cannot exist, they're sacrosanct anyway.

#5.1.3
is that many Democrats either don't believe wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class is a problem, or believe that there isn't a political acceptable solution (because free markets are sacrosanct).
Or have managed to convince themselves without any proof that these economic problems only happen because of racism and sexism.
These people have convinced themselves that they are the "pragmatic" ones, despite their long losing record.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

Yep, that sounds like a Markos argument. One of his more cogent actually. I'm surprised he didn't raise his game and include a 'fuck', just to prove his point.

#5.1 Markos is just one person and doesn't seem to say all that much on his site (my one interaction with him should be popular here - I pointed out that Obama was a 'moderate Republican' on economic policy, and Markos responded "Bullshit". I responded with a series of experts saying the same thing and finally with Obama himself saying he was - Markos did not reply.)

But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

@Craig234
But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

because you are not yet wise to the con.

The Dems deliberately push sexism and racism to distract from their classism, using identity politics to divide the 99% and keep us from forming a united front in favor of our shared economic interests.

Once you figure that out, everything else about the Dem's agenda makes a lot more sense.

#5.1 Markos is just one person and doesn't seem to say all that much on his site (my one interaction with him should be popular here - I pointed out that Obama was a 'moderate Republican' on economic policy, and Markos responded "Bullshit". I responded with a series of experts saying the same thing and finally with Obama himself saying he was - Markos did not reply.)

But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

@Not Henry Kissinger
I don't think there's a conspiracy to do that much. I think it's more that a lot of voters are much more focused on discrimination, and a lot of politicians give them what they want.

#5.1.3 But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

because you are not yet wise to the con.

The Dems deliberately push sexism and racism to distract from their classism, using identity politics to divide the 99% and keep us from forming a united front in favor of our shared economic interests.

Once you figure that out, everything else about the Dem's agenda makes a lot more sense.

@Craig234
Take another look at the Princeton graphs above. There is actually quite a bit of support across the political spectrum for increasing economic equality. Identity politics is what the duopoly offers for us to fight over since they and the people who make them wealthy don't agree with most of us on the importance of some measure of economic equality.

#5.1.3.3 I don't think there's a conspiracy to do that much. I think it's more that a lot of voters are much more focused on discrimination, and a lot of politicians give them what they want.

#5.1 Markos is just one person and doesn't seem to say all that much on his site (my one interaction with him should be popular here - I pointed out that Obama was a 'moderate Republican' on economic policy, and Markos responded "Bullshit". I responded with a series of experts saying the same thing and finally with Obama himself saying he was - Markos did not reply.)

But what's surprised me is how many people on the site disagreed when I tried to say the top issue is economics, inequality, plutocracy and instead insisted no, it's racism and sexism most important.

It was an ad that was running on dkos, a trailer for the new Gillian's island show that was a paid ad, I believe, and it was considered outrageously sexist by some, defended by others, and it turned into a massive argument. Eventually kos weighed in with a rude dismissal of the complaints from "the women's study set" who were upset. Of course they became further outraged, things got even worse, and apparently a great many left the site in protest. The original dkos pie fight. Kos didn't give a rat's ass about the complaints of sexism, in the ad or in the argument on the site. He didn't even consider appeasing the women and their male allies who deemed this clip unforgivably sexist.

I don't think he cares at all about the issues of racism or sexism. I could tell a long story from personal experiences there back in 2010, when I learned first hand just how much of his persona is fake on the issue of racism, Latino issues in particular, but it's too detailed to get into here and now.

I think kos pretends to care about those issues now, because that's the way the wind is blowing within the current Hillary-led dem party messaging. Which the site simply reflects and parrots. His current persona serves his own purposes at this time. That's all it is.

#5
He's fanatical against racism and sexism to compensate for his open classism.

OK, I'm not exactly what you might call the most militant feminist. In point of fact, I think that significant parts of feminism have jumped the shark. But sheez.... that's not really an appropriate ad for a site claiming to support women.

It was an ad that was running on dkos, a trailer for the new Gillian's island show that was a paid ad, I believe, and it was considered outrageously sexist by some, defended by others, and it turned into a massive argument. Eventually kos weighed in with a rude dismissal of the complaints from "the women's study set" who were upset. Of course they became further outraged, things got even worse, and apparently a great many left the site in protest. The original dkos pie fight. Kos didn't give a rat's ass about the complaints of sexism, in the ad or in the argument on the site. He didn't even consider appeasing the women and their male allies who deemed this clip unforgivably sexist.

I don't think he cares at all about the issues of racism or sexism. I could tell a long story from personal experiences there back in 2010, when I learned first hand just how much of his persona is fake on the issue of racism, Latino issues in particular, but it's too detailed to get into here and now.

I think kos pretends to care about those issues now, because that's the way the wind is blowing within the current Hillary-led dem party messaging. Which the site simply reflects and parrots. His current persona serves his own purposes at this time. That's all it is.

up

12 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

@SnappleBC
(and it seemed reasonable) was that he didn't control the content of thr ads because they were randomly chosen by some ad company that inserted them into reserved spaces on the site (fora per view fee) and rotated them. Obviously, he found some workaround for that, since then.

But you still see a lot of "sexy chick" type ads on DailyKos. I particularly enjoyed the Halloween costume ads every Halloween. I always clicked on those.

OK, I'm not exactly what you might call the most militant feminist. In point of fact, I think that significant parts of feminism have jumped the shark. But sheez.... that's not really an appropriate ad for a site claiming to support women.

It was an ad that was running on dkos, a trailer for the new Gillian's island show that was a paid ad, I believe, and it was considered outrageously sexist by some, defended by others, and it turned into a massive argument. Eventually kos weighed in with a rude dismissal of the complaints from "the women's study set" who were upset. Of course they became further outraged, things got even worse, and apparently a great many left the site in protest. The original dkos pie fight. Kos didn't give a rat's ass about the complaints of sexism, in the ad or in the argument on the site. He didn't even consider appeasing the women and their male allies who deemed this clip unforgivably sexist.

I don't think he cares at all about the issues of racism or sexism. I could tell a long story from personal experiences there back in 2010, when I learned first hand just how much of his persona is fake on the issue of racism, Latino issues in particular, but it's too detailed to get into here and now.

I think kos pretends to care about those issues now, because that's the way the wind is blowing within the current Hillary-led dem party messaging. Which the site simply reflects and parrots. His current persona serves his own purposes at this time. That's all it is.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

I tried several times my usual way of adding YouTube videos, but all it would display was a small empty box. What's the secret?

I wasn't at dkos at the time of The Great Pie Fight, I heard about it after I joined but it was long before my time there. But one boring day I took the time to find and read some of the old diaries and comments from the incident, including kos's famous knock on "the women's studies set" -- as he then referred to those who were upset about it.

I just find it interesting how he's now viewed as a champion of the fake and pathetic version of feminism that has taken root thanks to Hilz and her perpetual presentation of victimhood as feminist. And I believe it's as fake as everything else about him.

The true sign of any gourmet chef worth his salt is his ability to work with the rarest, most expensive and exotic ingredients. The Chinese have their shark fins and the endless varieties of soup based thereon, while the Piemontese of Northern Italy have their beloved white truffles, which are literally worth more than their weight in gold. We here at the eXile have a rich culinary tradition of our own, with one ingredient in particular being treasured above all others: unadulterated horse semen.

Prices for this ingredient vary based on the quality of the source, of course. For example, prices of $100,000 per ounce are not unheard of for the finest specimens. However, sperm of such quality is typically reserved for the meals of kings and other economic royalty. In our case, 5 ounces of spunk from “Pobornik”—a decidedly mediocre 15-year-old dark bay thoroughbred who has produced no exceptional offspring—cost a reasonable 500 rubles. This is plenty good enough for a Moscow hack target, even one as diabolical as New York Times bureau chief Michael Wines.

Monetary issues aside, simply procuring the horse sperm can be a difficult process. In most Westernized countries, you will need to present all varieties of identification and licenses certifying that you will be using the cum for appropriate purposes. Here in Moscow, meanwhile, we were able to cut a deal with Moscow Horse Farm #1 by claiming we needed the sperm for some vague cosmetics experimentation.

Any number of delicious recipes would benefit from the addition or substitution of high-quality horse semen, but nothing says “We Got You!” like the good old-fashioned pie in the face. As it happens, horse spunk is very close in both texture and nutritional content to the corn starch that is commonly used in custard cream pies.

Below you will find the basic recipe we used for the Equine Custard Cream Pie with which we hit Michael Wines in the face last Friday, March 30, 2001. Even the beginner should find the recipe relatively easy to follow and technically undemanding. The chef who is more experienced with the handling of horse sperm may wish to alter the quantities somewhat according to personal taste. Please note, however, that use of milk in excess of the 1 1/2 cups quoted will in most cases compromise the structural integrity of the custard-cream mixture.

A final note on handling the horse semen. The specimen may be stored without detriment for up to one year if kept in an airtight container in your freezer. As we learned the hard way, however, keeping the sample in a refrigerator may cause the sample to assume a bright yellowish hue that may only be described as “radioactive.” It is not known if this change has an effect on the sperm’s nutritional attributes, or if it involves any kind of health risk for the human target. In any event, avoid letting the semen come in to contact with your skin, and it’s probably a good idea to dispose of any implements used in the preparation of the pie.

Equine Custard Cream Pie

1 ready-made pie crust

3 egg yolks

5 oz. fresh horse semen

3/4 cup sugar

1 1/2 cups whole milk

1/2 teaspoon coarse (kosher) salt

1 tablespoon butter (at room temperature)

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1/2 cup heavy whipping cream

for the topping:

1 cup fresh or frozen (thawed) strawberries

2 tablespoons sugar

1/4 cup milk

In a medium saucepan, beat the egg yolks. Stir in the horse semen and sugar until well blended. Add the milk and salt. Simmer on low heat for 5 to 7 minutes, until the custard mixture begins to bubble and froth. Stir in the vanilla extract. Keep in refrigerator for 2 to 4 hours to cool and congeal.

Using an electric mixer, whip the cream until the formation of stiff peaks. With a spatula, gently fold the whipped cream into the cooled custard. Final mixture should be semi-liquid, with the consistency of fairly runny pudding.

Pour the custard-cream mixture into the pie crust, filling almost to the top. Using the tines of a fork, poke the surface of the custard repeatedly in order to form tiny, meringue-like peaks. Keep in refrigerator until ready to serve.

To make the topping, mash the strawberries (raspberries may also be used) with a fork or puree in a blender. Stir in the sugar. Add the milk gradually while stirring, as much as the mixture will accept without becoming excessively runny.

Just before serving, pour the topping onto the pie in whatever pattern you desire, the distinctive eXile “X” in our case. Be sure not to cover the entire surface of the custard! The topping is primarily a decorative accent, after all—you want your victim, assuming his palette is sufficiently well developed, to be able to taste the horse sperm you took such pains to procure.

Good luck!

Yes, it was a RUSSIAN!!! racehorse who spermed propagandist reporting and spat in the face of one of the worst of them all. No doubt an under-(stable-blanket)-cover Russian government spy implanting the notion of this by cleverly using Facebook advertising about Black Lives Matter long before either of them ever even existed! (This being the real reason that Hillary lost the Presidential election 15 years later, although, oddly enough, apparently not the Presidential election she lost before...)

It was an ad that was running on dkos, a trailer for the new Gillian's island show that was a paid ad, I believe, and it was considered outrageously sexist by some, defended by others, and it turned into a massive argument. Eventually kos weighed in with a rude dismissal of the complaints from "the women's study set" who were upset. Of course they became further outraged, things got even worse, and apparently a great many left the site in protest. The original dkos pie fight. Kos didn't give a rat's ass about the complaints of sexism, in the ad or in the argument on the site. He didn't even consider appeasing the women and their male allies who deemed this clip unforgivably sexist.

I don't think he cares at all about the issues of racism or sexism. I could tell a long story from personal experiences there back in 2010, when I learned first hand just how much of his persona is fake on the issue of racism, Latino issues in particular, but it's too detailed to get into here and now.

I think kos pretends to care about those issues now, because that's the way the wind is blowing within the current Hillary-led dem party messaging. Which the site simply reflects and parrots. His current persona serves his own purposes at this time. That's all it is.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@thanatokephaloides
represent "the left"? Whatever it is that he does represent, it sure isn't the left.

Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive blog Daily Kos, agrees with Biden on this much: “The left’s effectiveness will always be constrained so long as part of it indiscriminately attacks those with money and success.”

"Like me!" -- Markos

It's no accident that the word "boss", spelled in reverse, is "double-s o b"! And Markos is definitely a boss, no doubt about it!

What I don't see is Democrats who recognize this. They were perfectly happy with eight years of Obama, as legislature after legislature went to the Republicans and as Obama singlehandedly revived an austerity agenda which was championed by both Clinton and the "Contract with America" people and which had been dead for eight years afterward under that supposed paragon of evil George W. Bush. Maybe for awhile they were out there offering a nice Democratic Party gloss on Occupy, which was crushed by Obama and a couple of dozen Democrat mayors (you know, before their offices were offered to Republicans).

At the same time they're out there proudly proclaiming themselves as "progressives." They sat there and did nothing while the primaries became a farce and while Sanders volunteered for a low-level position with the campaign that cheated him of the nomination. Now they're out with their standard excuses -- "the Republicans are worse," "the Green Party is a non-starter," "we need the money," "Democratic victory," "maybe we'll actually do something," "Fascism," "Russia," blah blah blah. They have no clue that forty years of their own behavior brought us to the present precipice.

up

41 users have voted.

—

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

forty years of their own behavior brought us to the present precipice.

as the man says, you are the ones who brought us here.
imo,the first sign of decency for any pol is to denounce & renounce both parties.

What I don't see is Democrats who recognize this. They were perfectly happy with eight years of Obama, as legislature after legislature went to the Republicans and as Obama singlehandedly revived an austerity agenda which was championed by both Clinton and the "Contract with America" people and which had been dead for eight years afterward under that supposed paragon of evil George W. Bush. Maybe for awhile they were out there offering a nice Democratic Party gloss on Occupy, which was crushed by Obama and a couple of dozen Democrat mayors (you know, before their offices were offered to Republicans).

At the same time they're out there proudly proclaiming themselves as "progressives." They sat there and did nothing while the primaries became a farce and while Sanders volunteered for a low-level position with the campaign that cheated him of the nomination. Now they're out with their standard excuses -- "the Republicans are worse," "the Green Party is a non-starter," "we need the money," "Democratic victory," "maybe we'll actually do something," "Fascism," "Russia," blah blah blah. They have no clue that forty years of their own behavior brought us to the present precipice.

#6.1 Yes, let's have everyone progressive would lean toward Democrats if they had to pick renounce both parties and split the Democratic vote, while the Right doesn't split their vote and wins.

It reminds me of California ending Gerrymandering by adopting a 'fair' citizens commission to draw districts (so fair it has equal representation for R and D while the State has 2-1 D's over R's).

Very fair - except none of the Republican states did the same, so only they benefit from Gerrymandering, and we get results like Dems getting more votes in 2012 and fewer seats.

In this case, what would be more 'fair' nationally is for Dems to match Republican Gerrymandering to balance it and help whoever gets the most votes get the most seats.

Until it can be made more fair for BOTH sides.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

@Craig234
All the nice Democrats freak out when we vote Green, yet they have nothing to say when we just refuse to vote. It's the same phenomenon: both protest votes and protest nonvotes are mere protests, yet all the nice Democrats are only hyper-concerned when we have someone other than the Democrat to vote for. What they all refuse to recognize is that Democrat politicians are not entitled to our votes -- they have to earn them.

#6.1.1.1 No one said losing a thousand seats is no biggie, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

cycle it can't escape. You see that, particularly in the government, where plans, processes and systems sort of feed off themselves making it impossible to think or operate outside those plans, processes and systems. It's illustrated by a common refrain when workers are asked why they're doing something, "that's the way we've always done it".

I was just thinking yesterday how there will be nothing changing with the democratic party within the next three years and it will not be able to serve up a presidential candidate that will provide any inspiration whatsoever in 2020 (Bernie is too old, face it.) That probably leaves the next seven years certainly without any hope from Congress/Senate and the president. More than likely it will continue even after that, but we can be certain about the next 7 years.
Seven years. While they go about their crimes. We are easily led from one election to another in two year increments.

there will be nothing changing with the democratic party within the next three years and it will not be able to serve up a presidential candidate that will provide any inspiration whatsoever in 2020 (Bernie is too old, face it.)

Change is not just inevitable, but seems to already be happening.

cycle it can't escape. You see that, particularly in the government, where plans, processes and systems sort of feed off themselves making it impossible to think or operate outside those plans, processes and systems. It's illustrated by a common refrain when workers are asked why they're doing something, "that's the way we've always done it".

I was just thinking yesterday how there will be nothing changing with the democratic party within the next three years and it will not be able to serve up a presidential candidate that will provide any inspiration whatsoever in 2020 (Bernie is too old, face it.) That probably leaves the next seven years certainly without any hope from Congress/Senate and the president. More than likely it will continue even after that, but we can be certain about the next 7 years.
Seven years. While they go about their crimes. We are easily led from one election to another in two year increments.

day is nothing but a vast patronage machine. Rank and file and donors are both complicit here. No Medicare for All or even public option because jobs at insurance offices and HMOs, as well as opposition from large donors. No peace policy because of remittances from servicemen and women and defense contractor jobs as well as pressure from the MI complex. Sorry, but we need to face facts here.

A new party, which I would like to see, or even an insurgent part of the Democratic Party MUST have, right after its dismantle the Empire peace plan, a put Americans back to work plan, financed by tax on financial transactions. And, sorry, I'm a jerk, ok, that needs to be put Americans who live right here back to work plan, not someone's cousins from abroad.

@Nastarana
but honestly there can be "enough jobs" for everyone in the world. The unemployment rate is an invention, not a given.

day is nothing but a vast patronage machine. Rank and file and donors are both complicit here. No Medicare for All or even public option because jobs at insurance offices and HMOs, as well as opposition from large donors. No peace policy because of remittances from servicemen and women and defense contractor jobs as well as pressure from the MI complex. Sorry, but we need to face facts here.

A new party, which I would like to see, or even an insurgent part of the Democratic Party MUST have, right after its dismantle the Empire peace plan, a put Americans back to work plan, financed by tax on financial transactions. And, sorry, I'm a jerk, ok, that needs to be put Americans who live right here back to work plan, not someone's cousins from abroad.

up

11 users have voted.

—

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

Certainly I agree that is a large part of what will be necessary. If we somehow did enact universal healthcare, and somehow end the imperial military efforts to rule the world, a great many jobs would be eliminated and no longer necessary. This is not an insignificant hurdle, politically speaking.

For instance, last week some of my coworkers, generally liberal-minded people, strongly anti trump, were talking about how Raytheon got some big new contract and is hiring again, good news for Tucson because Raytheon is a major employer here, with many good paying jobs and excellent benefits. Three people in my department have spouses who work there. They might theoretically be against endless war, but still would not likely embrace a movement or party that says it is going to make them unemployed, if we win. The military scaling back is similar, here and in any town that has a military base. Our economy would be rocked, and no one can see how we make it, without all those jobs and government money flowing our way. And it is a lot of money.

Jobs ... how many people truly want to do the jobs they have? I wonder. I like mine ok overall, and I sure can't afford to lose it, and I remember the stress of being unemployed. But the truth is I'd quit in a second if I suddenly had enough money to live reasonably comfortably and had access to healthcare without it. I'd much rather have an early retirement than work for the rest of my days. I want to write and research what interests me, and rescue dogs -- not commute through traffic five days a week to sit in a cubicle and produce documents and memos for executives to present and take credit for. Does anyone love working in fast food, or retail, or in coal mines, or factories, or amazon warehouses or driving delivery trucks? I guess some probably do. But I think a lot don't.

I'm not against technology helping to reduce drudgery and allowing people to work less, have more free time, and earlier retirement. I want the employees of the military and their contractors and the insurance industries and the mines and oil companies to still have a good life, without keeping those jobs. Because we don't need those jobs anymore. Those jobs are harmful. But people won't vote for eliminating them, not without a strong, real and meaningful alternative. Not vague promises of "retraining" and infrastructure.

I think we need to offer both a solid infrastructure investment with very big and specific projects and funding to create new jobs, and a much more robust basic living and free healthcare guaranteed to all, to free up some of the masses to not toil away at jobs they don't want just to survive.

#8 but honestly there can be "enough jobs" for everyone in the world. The unemployment rate is an invention, not a given.

@CS in AZ
"Those immigrants are stealing our jobs!" As if they were planning careers as leafblower operators and some Mexicans came along and stole their chosen opportunities. Yeah, capitalist jobs are not how I want to spend the rest of my life either.

Certainly I agree that is a large part of what will be necessary. If we somehow did enact universal healthcare, and somehow end the imperial military efforts to rule the world, a great many jobs would be eliminated and no longer necessary. This is not an insignificant hurdle, politically speaking.

For instance, last week some of my coworkers, generally liberal-minded people, strongly anti trump, were talking about how Raytheon got some big new contract and is hiring again, good news for Tucson because Raytheon is a major employer here, with many good paying jobs and excellent benefits. Three people in my department have spouses who work there. They might theoretically be against endless war, but still would not likely embrace a movement or party that says it is going to make them unemployed, if we win. The military scaling back is similar, here and in any town that has a military base. Our economy would be rocked, and no one can see how we make it, without all those jobs and government money flowing our way. And it is a lot of money.

Jobs ... how many people truly want to do the jobs they have? I wonder. I like mine ok overall, and I sure can't afford to lose it, and I remember the stress of being unemployed. But the truth is I'd quit in a second if I suddenly had enough money to live reasonably comfortably and had access to healthcare without it. I'd much rather have an early retirement than work for the rest of my days. I want to write and research what interests me, and rescue dogs -- not commute through traffic five days a week to sit in a cubicle and produce documents and memos for executives to present and take credit for. Does anyone love working in fast food, or retail, or in coal mines, or factories, or amazon warehouses or driving delivery trucks? I guess some probably do. But I think a lot don't.

I'm not against technology helping to reduce drudgery and allowing people to work less, have more free time, and earlier retirement. I want the employees of the military and their contractors and the insurance industries and the mines and oil companies to still have a good life, without keeping those jobs. Because we don't need those jobs anymore. Those jobs are harmful. But people won't vote for eliminating them, not without a strong, real and meaningful alternative. Not vague promises of "retraining" and infrastructure.

I think we need to offer both a solid infrastructure investment with very big and specific projects and funding to create new jobs, and a much more robust basic living and free healthcare guaranteed to all, to free up some of the masses to not toil away at jobs they don't want just to survive.

up

11 users have voted.

—

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

day is nothing but a vast patronage machine. Rank and file and donors are both complicit here. No Medicare for All or even public option because jobs at insurance offices and HMOs, as well as opposition from large donors. No peace policy because of remittances from servicemen and women and defense contractor jobs as well as pressure from the MI complex. Sorry, but we need to face facts here.

A new party, which I would like to see, or even an insurgent part of the Democratic Party MUST have, right after its dismantle the Empire peace plan, a put Americans back to work plan, financed by tax on financial transactions. And, sorry, I'm a jerk, ok, that needs to be put Americans who live right here back to work plan, not someone's cousins from abroad.

"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can’t really tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot

@Craig234
Even if Clinton had squeaked out a win we would still have the same Congress as we do now and they're the ones that failed to renew CHIPS. Maybe she would have been able to save chips by putting Medicare or social security on the table like Obama and the 90s Clintons wanted to do.

#8.2.1.1.1.1 Maher pointed out that Republicans had ended Chips and Democrats wouldn't have, Brand agreed that was terrible.

It might be - we'd all agree - not enough for what we'd like, but it's a damn good argument for lesser evil in the meantime, and one of *many*.

Brand didn't offer any reason not to vote for Democrats because of things like Chips, and you didn't either. They both made valid points.

@Craig234
If establishment Democrats can win with lesser evilism we are never going to get GOOD policy. (They make money out of it.) It's only when a few of the more flagrant lesser evil Democrats go down that we'll capture the attention of the others.

#8.2.1.1.1.1 Maher pointed out that Republicans had ended Chips and Democrats wouldn't have, Brand agreed that was terrible.

It might be - we'd all agree - not enough for what we'd like, but it's a damn good argument for lesser evil in the meantime, and one of *many*.

Brand didn't offer any reason not to vote for Democrats because of things like Chips, and you didn't either. They both made valid points.

In comparison to the $80B that was increased for the $1T per year Pentagon budget.

And Hillary would have asked for a similar amount.

Hillary totally would have bagged the Iran deal, she was bagging it on the stump when she was covering herself in Obamage.

It's a gotcha question about Drumpf vs Hillary, and Brand hit it square on the nose with little time to explain -- the hegemony would have remained the same -- and CHIPs wouldn't have been canceled outright, but CHIPs would have been on the auction block if corporate wanted it.

It is not a good argument for the LoTE, as Brand tried to bring up with Bernie being cheated, but Mahrer doesn't believe he was cheated because his head is up his corporate sponsor's ass.

HBO is socially liberal but fiscally conservative, like a Clinton, which means that human rights are malleable in the face of economics.

Hillary wins and we get tax cuts for corporations, hot war in the ME, and continued market based everything and citizen as consumer -- the same as it has been for the last 30 fucking years.

Hegemony. Brand smashed it, but we're too stupid as a people to notice.

Drumpf put us all in the steerage section, which should have us ALL facing him and the other more reputable, Oligarchs with torches and pitchforks, and the DNC pointed us at Putin -- to wipe up spilt milk and alleviate the sour grapes.

Millions of children will not receive healthcare that would have under Hillary because of that one policy. Comparing it to the Pentagon budget does not change that.

You could wipe out ever dollar the government spends on every non-entitlement program and say the same thing - compare it to the Pentagon budget! It's a false argument.

Hillary would not have increase the Pentagon budget more than Republicans - at worst.

There a long list of policies with massive harm she would not do Republicans are trying to.

There's no evidence should would have killed the Iran deal - she was bragging about her part in getting the diplomacy for it started during the campaign.

In contrast, trump is acting as an agent of Netenyahu and calling it the worst deal in history.

Hillary would not be pushing the repeal of the ACA that came within a vote of passing, the massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations that might pass.

This topic of how bad Hillary would have been is getting sort of pointless now other than for historical purposes, though it'll come up again as the Dems have their two factions fight.

The point is to address the problems affecting both parties - though I say not equally - and society more broadly, affecting the system.

To try to get democracy working by organizing the public to stop being divided over secondary issues and unite on the one that matters,to fight plutocracy.

And I'll argue against Republicans, or centrist Democrats, or third party voters if they're threatening the 'least bad candidate', or the 'don't vote' crowd, anyone against that effort.

In comparison to the $80B that was increased for the $1T per year Pentagon budget.

And Hillary would have asked for a similar amount.

Hillary totally would have bagged the Iran deal, she was bagging it on the stump when she was covering herself in Obamage.

It's a gotcha question about Drumpf vs Hillary, and Brand hit it square on the nose with little time to explain -- the hegemony would have remained the same -- and CHIPs wouldn't have been canceled outright, but CHIPs would have been on the auction block if corporate wanted it.

It is not a good argument for the LoTE, as Brand tried to bring up with Bernie being cheated, but Mahrer doesn't believe he was cheated because his head is up his corporate sponsor's ass.

HBO is socially liberal but fiscally conservative, like a Clinton, which means that human rights are malleable in the face of economics.

Hillary wins and we get tax cuts for corporations, hot war in the ME, and continued market based everything and citizen as consumer -- the same as it has been for the last 30 fucking years.

Hegemony. Brand smashed it, but we're too stupid as a people to notice.

Drumpf put us all in the steerage section, which should have us ALL facing him and the other more reputable, Oligarchs with torches and pitchforks, and the DNC pointed us at Putin -- to wipe up spilt milk and alleviate the sour grapes.

...Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.”

So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ...

...The context for her speech was the Iran Deal, which Clinton supports. It would be virtually impossible for her not to do so — there is no way anyone could win the Democratic nomination while opposing a key foreign policy legacy of the sitting Democratic president — but, regardless of the motives, she has the right position on that. But that deal is vehemently opposed by AIPAC and of grave concern to the hawkish foreign policy circles on which she has long depended, and so the core purpose of the speech was to assure those nervous precincts that, despite the Iran Deal support, she’s still the same aggressive, war-threatening, obsessively Israel-devoted, bellicose hawk they’ve grown to know and love.

To achieve that, Clinton repeatedly invoked the Netanyahu-cartoon image of Iran as a Grave and Evil Terrorist Menace. ...

...She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:

Should it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. And because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us.

As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton:

I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years.

She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.”

Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation.

But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ...

...About Russia, she said, “I think we have not done enough” and put herself “in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.” ...

...But overall, the picture that the stern Iraq and Libya war advocate painted of herself was as clear as it was unsurprising and alarming: She resides on the hawkish, militaristic end of the Democratic Party when it comes to most foreign policy questions. But the real significance is this: If Hillary Clinton is already this hawkish and war-threatening while trying to fend off Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary while bolstering her liberal credentials, imagine what she’s going to be doing and saying about all of this once she’s the Democratic nominee running against a Republican in the general election and, even scarier, once she occupies the Oval Office and, as far as the U.S. military is concerned, assumes the title of Commander-in-Chief. ...

...Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.”

So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ...

...The context for her speech was the Iran Deal, which Clinton supports. It would be virtually impossible for her not to do so — there is no way anyone could win the Democratic nomination while opposing a key foreign policy legacy of the sitting Democratic president — but, regardless of the motives, she has the right position on that. But that deal is vehemently opposed by AIPAC and of grave concern to the hawkish foreign policy circles on which she has long depended, and so the core purpose of the speech was to assure those nervous precincts that, despite the Iran Deal support, she’s still the same aggressive, war-threatening, obsessively Israel-devoted, bellicose hawk they’ve grown to know and love.

To achieve that, Clinton repeatedly invoked the Netanyahu-cartoon image of Iran as a Grave and Evil Terrorist Menace. ...

...She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:

Should it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. And because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us.

As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton:

I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years.

She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.”

Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation.

But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ...

...About Russia, she said, “I think we have not done enough” and put herself “in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.” ...

...But overall, the picture that the stern Iraq and Libya war advocate painted of herself was as clear as it was unsurprising and alarming: She resides on the hawkish, militaristic end of the Democratic Party when it comes to most foreign policy questions. But the real significance is this: If Hillary Clinton is already this hawkish and war-threatening while trying to fend off Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary while bolstering her liberal credentials, imagine what she’s going to be doing and saying about all of this once she’s the Democratic nominee running against a Republican in the general election and, even scarier, once she occupies the Oval Office and, as far as the U.S. military is concerned, assumes the title of Commander-in-Chief. ...

... The feeling between Clinton and Iran was mutual. Iran’s government responded to her “obliterate” remark with a formal complaint at the U.N.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born political analyst based in Israel, says Clinton was viewed in Tehran as “more confrontational” than Obama when she was secretary of state.

“Such a view most probably gave more voice and credibility to those in Iran who encouraged Ayatollah Khamenei to reach a deal with Barack Obama before he left office,” said Javedanfar, “because he is the last chance they had to find someone who was genuinely interested in listening to them.”

Even so, Clinton played a key role in launching Obama’s dialogue with Tehran. As she twisted arms to win support for sanctions at the U.N., Clinton secretly dispatched two key deputies — including her top campaign foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan — to test the waters for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Those under-the-radar meetings, which remained secret for more than a year, laid the groundwork for the public diplomacy, which led to Tuesday’s deal.

At the same time, Clinton joined with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in urging more detailed planning for the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran. That included the possible U.S. response in the event of a surprise Israeli attack, and, officials say, a discussion of whether such an attack might be in America’s interest.

As the talks unfolded in 2014 and 2015, Clinton largely avoided commenting on specifics about the deal. But she did hint at a harder position than the one Obama wound up accepting. ...

I repeat from the above: '... Clinton secretly dispatched two key deputies — including her top campaign foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan — to test the waters for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Those under-the-radar meetings, which remained secret for more than a year...'

And joining '...with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in urging more detailed planning for the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran. That included the possible U.S. response in the event of a surprise Israeli attack...'

'...her top campaign foreign policy adviser ...??? Was this also after she'd left public office? (Too cold and tired to check details right now, about to curl up in bed with a cat and a book.)

Sleepy or not, it sounded to me more as though she potentially was, rather typically, sending out spies with the hope of being able to assuredly drag America into bailing out Israel for attacking Iran by having the American military step in, as an excuse to please equally bloodthirsty Bibi, certain billionaires and other Israeli-centric donors, and attempting to manufacture some excuse for it being 'in America's interest' to invade and occupy yet another country to enrich various corporate interests and kill/main/dispossess lots more civilians...

And I'm wondering why - when Hillary was no longer in government, period, never mind no longer Secretary of State - nobody seems to have been questioning why she was apparently kept in the loop on the Iran talks to '...hint at a harder position than the one Obama wound up accepting ...' and - in office or not -to get together with a warhawk Defense Secretary to plan a military attack, should another militaristic country 'just happen' to initiate a war crime by surprise-striking the targeted country first. And the same with Dick Cheney and a bunch of other Bush admin warhawks, even longer out of public office than was Hillary.

Oh, silly me - it was going to be Her Turn as President next, even though she said herself, as an excuse for criminal behaviour in endangering National Security for convenience and personal profit, that she'd failed to understand basic security protocol integral to her job as Sec of State and stated that she still had no understanding of it while running for the Presidency. And Dick Cheney and the rest were still going to be running the corporate/war machine from the shadow of the White House.

And that Israeli attack would have been almost as surprising to those planning for it, 'just in case', as the content of the above paragraph which I just wrote was to me - if Obama had gone with that scenario. He did exercise some restraint over Hillary, apparently even when she was no longer his Secretary of State and had no business pushing attacks on other countries to please her donors. Not that anyone - in or out of public office - ever does.

I really feel that a nuclear bullet's been dodged twice now... even if they're all still in there, pushing a 'useful idiot with a pen and the ability to sign things' into instigating even more global disaster than he'd already be creating on his own, out of pure greed and rampant ignorance, and in so many immediately lucrative ways.

And at least Trump has not so far indicated that he enjoys and is amused by people dying a horrible death - at this point...

We cannot continue to vote for evil, to encourage it to grow.

Edited due to repeating a couple of words in the course of sentence reconstruction. It's a knack, lol; what can I say?

Not enough? Elect better Democrats. I'd say 'or Republicans' but is it really possible to elect pro-Medicare For All Republicans in today's Republican Party?

Another fact - you cite anti-peace spending based on checks from service members and defense contractors. You really think it's service members having an influence on that?

day is nothing but a vast patronage machine. Rank and file and donors are both complicit here. No Medicare for All or even public option because jobs at insurance offices and HMOs, as well as opposition from large donors. No peace policy because of remittances from servicemen and women and defense contractor jobs as well as pressure from the MI complex. Sorry, but we need to face facts here.

A new party, which I would like to see, or even an insurgent part of the Democratic Party MUST have, right after its dismantle the Empire peace plan, a put Americans back to work plan, financed by tax on financial transactions. And, sorry, I'm a jerk, ok, that needs to be put Americans who live right here back to work plan, not someone's cousins from abroad.

@Craig234
I don't think it is jerkiness as much as it is fear of what they stand to loose, from remittances to nice middle class jobs for their kids all the way up to ambassadorships. That is why I think a new party or faction within the old party must have a robust jobs program, a new WPA. Its' not like there isn't work that needs doing.

During the primaries Bubba Clinton went on Colbert. He marginalized Bernie Sander supporters as losers, and then went to profusely praise Trump. Dang, there went Bill's chance to make even more millions of dollars.

During the primaries Bubba Clinton went on Colbert. He marginalized Bernie Sander supporters as losers, and then went to profusely praise Trump. Dang, there went Bill's chance to make even more millions of dollars.

@lotlizard
That group of comedians might be the most potent propaganda tools for establishment. I don't watch them ecept for the occasions youtube clip, but at least in a few cases some of them have said stuff about Russia the country that is from a certain perspective, racist.

Sorry but it seems to me the party is very predictable and this is what they do. Always. Sadly the people who "haven't learned anything" yet are the voters who keep voting for them anyway, and thinking someday this rote behavior will pay off with better policies and better government.

Warning: shameless repost of a political satire site I find immensely funny.

up

10 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Penny Pritzker who was given an ambassadorship after he was elected. This is what most presidents do. People who give up huge amounts of money get paid back this way. Are they even qualified for the position? Who cares? Most of the positions are just fluffy assignments anyway. Look at some of the people Trump appointed.
Callista Greenwhich's political history has been well documented, right? This is why she was appointed the ambassador to Italy. I'm sure that her previous history of adultery will go unnoticed by people in the Vatican. They have a habit of ignoring the sexual innuendos that has plagued the Catholic Church.

Now that her tenure is over, she can now help her husband govern I'm Chicago.
Obama is getting his reward for selling out the citizenry when the banks crashed the global economy. What's a half million dollars between friends. He learned from the Clintons that if you do good things for the financial institutions and corporations you are well rewarded.
And people wonder why we don't trust our government officials.

Will they even question their actions when they are close to death? Somehow I doubt it.
Another great essay, gjohnsit.

up

16 users have voted.

—

You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and giving you shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. Doh!

Listening to Make It Plain on Progress Radio on a weekly ride up to NH in rush hour traffic. The host was, infuriatingly, all in for HER. One evening he had a particularly shrill, wimpy, near-hysterical, know-it-all person on, and I thought, "Who the hell is THIS twit? It must be some juked-up caller." Alas, no, it was Markos! Turns out he was on this show every Thursday evening. Thereafter it became a case of tuning in just to learn how to hate all he stood for the more. Sniveling and pedantic, sneering and interuptive, and an intellectual lightweight, with a high, sniggery laugh, I thought again, "THIS is Markos?" As above, so below: no wonder so many people on TOS are assholes. It's like people on NPR (who were also all in for HER) still parroting HER's propensity to answer a question with, "Look, ...." to which I always respond, "No, YOU look." I suppose some focus group in Iowa said that it made HER appear tough. Ugghhh-- them and their little buzzwords! Away with them, I say!